Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri. Rishad Murtza, learned Government Advocate and perused the record.

This petition has been filed with the following prayers:—

(i) to quash the order dated 12.08.2015 in Criminal Case No.360 of 2014, 'State of U.P. v. Arvind Kejriwal' in pursuance of the Charge-Sheet No.122 of 2014 dated 09.07.2014 in Case Crime No.608 of 2014, under Section 125 of the Representation of People Act, 1951, Police Station-Kotwali Musafirkhana, District-Amethi, pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Musafirkhana, District-Amethi.

(ii) to stay the entire criminal proceedings in Criminal Case No.360 of 2014, 'State of U.P. v. Arvind Kejriwal' in pursuance of the Charge Sheet No.122 of 2014 dated 09.07.2014 in Case Crime No.608 of 2014, under Section 125 of the Representation of People Act, 1951, Police Station-Kotwali Musafirkhana, District-Amethi, pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Musafirkhana, District-Amethi, during pendency of the present case.

(iii) to order to concerned Hon’ble Court for deciding the pending application of the applicant filed under the proviso of Section 239, Cr.P.C. in Criminal Case No.360 of 2014, 'State of U.P. v. Arvind Kejriwal' bearing Case Crime No.608 of 2014, under Section 125 of the Representation of People Act, 1951, Police Station-Kotwali Musafirkhana, District-Amethi, pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Musafirkhana, District-Amethi.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is the Chief Minister of Delhi against whom a case under Section 125 of Representation of People Act has been registered. The application for discharge under Section 239, Cr.P.C. has been moved which has not yet been decided and the application for personal exemption filed under Section 205 Cr.P.C. has wrongly been rejected. It has also been submitted that the petitioner is ready to file the undertakings before the Court that whenever his personal appearance is required, he shall appear personally.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the provisions of Section 88, Cr.P.C., which reads as under:

'88. Power to take bond for appearance. When any person for whose appearance or arrest the officer presiding in any Court is empowered to issue a summons or warrant, is present in such Court, such officer may require such person to execute a bond, with or without sureties, for his appearance in such Court, or any other Court to which the case may be transferred for trial'.

4. The main question for consideration is that whether after taking cognizance and issuance of the process, may be summons or warrant, the exemption application under Section 205 or 317, Cr.P.C. is maintainable without personal appearance and without furnishing bail bonds?

5. In the present case, it is admitted that till now the petitioner has not appeared before the court below and has also not filed any personal bond with or without sureties. The application for exemption under Section 205, Cr.P.C. was moved, which has been rejected by order dated 12.08.2015. The similar application was also moved previously, which was also rejected on 20.07.2015.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of this Court rendered in Santosh Chauhan & others v. State of U.P. & another reported in [(2011) (4) ALJ 121], in which, this Court has considered the scope of Section 205 Cr.P.C. but nowhere it has been held that without submitting the personal bond or sureties, the exemption under Section 205, Cr.P.C. can be granted.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further relied upon the case Roitong Singpho v. Sajjan Kumar Agarwal, reported in AIR 2009 (NOC) 129 (Gau), in which, the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court has held that the Court has to take into account the magnitude of sufferings, which a particular accused person may have to bear with, in order to make himself present in the Court and the discretion must be exercised judiciously. The Gauhati Hig